I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't think there is any ambiguity here. The court has spoken about this case in particular:

Musk vs. Altman Trial: Listen Live

...

Recording or rebroadcasting the audio livestream is strictly prohibited. This restriction applies regardless of platform or format. The Court takes violations seriously.

Pursuant to recently-amended Civil Local Rule 77-3, the stream provides audio only. No video of the proceedings will be broadcast.

This suggests that downloading or publishing a transcript would involve both recording and rebroadcasting (in a textual format), and is prohibited. I think the phrase "regardless of platform or format" was added to anticipate exactly this issue. The court makes this clear in other contexts as well. For example, the court's Zoom guidance states (emphasis mine):

Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including “screenshots” or other audio or visual copying of a hearing, is prohibited. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

Likewise, the District's bankruptcy unit, applying 77-3 by incorporation, states (emphasis mine):

Unless authorized by the Court, recording, retransmitting or otherwise copying or capturing of any portion of the video or audio content during a hearing, trial or other proceeding taking place before the Court is prohibited.

A violation of this prohibition is subject to sanctions including, but not limited to, removal of media credentials, restricted or denial of entry to future hearings, monetary sanctions, the suspension of electronic filing privileges or other sanction the Court deems necessary. 

The court takes 77-3 violations seriously. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has personally reprimanded at least one spectator caught photographing Musk in the courtroom during this trial. U.S. marshals have intercepted multiple others doing the same despite posted signage; she has said that she receives daily security briefings about activity around the courthouse, and one of her stated reasons for asking that the audio feed be enabled was to ease pressure on the marshals. Moreover, the Supreme Court has signaled that this District in particular should be read strictly here. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court issued an emergency stay blocking this very court's attempt to livestream a non-jury civil trial, stating "high-profile" cases as warrant heightened scrutiny of unauthorized broadcast.

Based on this evidence, I would strongly discourage any readers from attempting to record or share transcripts of this event. The court should publish the official transcripts in about 90 days.